Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage

[Ban Hammer 13,710]

You know, Charles...I think RJ called you on this before. You chastised me for being unfair to people like BY and Marc, and right here in this thread, BY insulted me, yet silence from you. You'd be a lot more credible if you weren't selective about what you consider unfair treatment. It's too bad you don't see your double standard.

i refer you to post 3, where you started with the name slinging.

- wild tangent

- sparky

Oh, ok. So you're saying now that it is ok to insult BY or Marc or Shooter, as long as they start it? Thanks for clearing that up because for awhile I got the impression that you believed they should be treated fairly in spite of their online behavior. Brilliant.

Dude, you insulted the guy and now you're crying that he insulted you back?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know, Charles...I think RJ called you on this before. You chastised me for being unfair to people like BY and Marc, and right here in this thread, BY insulted me, yet silence from you. You'd be a lot more credible if you weren't selective about what you consider unfair treatment. It's too bad you don't see your double standard.

i refer you to post 3, where you started with the name slinging.

- wild tangent

- sparky

Oh, ok. So you're saying now that it is ok to insult BY or Marc or Shooter, as long as they start it? Thanks for clearing that up because for awhile I got the impression that you believed they should be treated fairly in spite of their online behavior. Brilliant.

Dude, you insulted the guy and now you're crying that he insulted you back?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

stfu and stop instigating. This has nothing to do with you.

[mawilson 2,133]

You know, Charles...I think RJ called you on this before. You chastised me for being unfair to people like BY and Marc, and right here in this thread, BY insulted me, yet silence from you. You'd be a lot more credible if you weren't selective about what you consider unfair treatment. It's too bad you don't see your double standard.

i refer you to post 3, where you started with the name slinging.

- wild tangent

- sparky

Oh, ok. So you're saying now that it is ok to insult BY or Marc or Shooter, as long as they start it? Thanks for clearing that up because for awhile I got the impression that you believed they should be treated fairly in spite of their online behavior. Brilliant.

Dude, you insulted the guy and now you're crying that he insulted you back?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

stfu and stop instigating. This has nothing to do with you.

More name slinging *yawn*

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know, Charles...I think RJ called you on this before. You chastised me for being unfair to people like BY and Marc, and right here in this thread, BY insulted me, yet silence from you. You'd be a lot more credible if you weren't selective about what you consider unfair treatment. It's too bad you don't see your double standard.

i refer you to post 3, where you started with the name slinging.

- wild tangent

- sparky

Oh, ok. So you're saying now that it is ok to insult BY or Marc or Shooter, as long as they start it? Thanks for clearing that up because for awhile I got the impression that you believed they should be treated fairly in spite of their online behavior. Brilliant.

Dude, you insulted the guy and now you're crying that he insulted you back?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Charles, be a man and answer for yourself. Come on now. Mawilson has no clue what this is all about. You made the claim that people like BY, Marc (Rogue), Shooter and TallCoolOne get treated unfairly here. That in spite of their TOS violations and online behavior, they don't deserve the treatment they get here.

Then I show you example of just one insult by BY towards me and you give him a free pass from your self righteous crusade because I started it.

LOL...you know...you don't even have to answer. I think enough people here on VJ can read and draw their own conclusions about your selectiveness. You're a real pal, Charles. Thanks.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

The medical industry charges so much because their liability insurance is so high.

Oh wait, I think I'm agreeing with Constellation.

Steven, don't kick me out!

reported for agreeing with constellation!

Reported for double-reporting.

Double-reported for reporting double-reporting.

[Ban Hammer 13,710]

You know, Charles...I think RJ called you on this before. You chastised me for being unfair to people like BY and Marc, and right here in this thread, BY insulted me, yet silence from you. You'd be a lot more credible if you weren't selective about what you consider unfair treatment. It's too bad you don't see your double standard.

i refer you to post 3, where you started with the name slinging.

- wild tangent

- sparky

Oh, ok. So you're saying now that it is ok to insult BY or Marc or Shooter, as long as they start it? Thanks for clearing that up because for awhile I got the impression that you believed they should be treated fairly in spite of their online behavior. Brilliant.

Dude, you insulted the guy and now you're crying that he insulted you back?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Charles, be a man and answer for yourself. Come on now. Mawilson has no clue what this is all about. You made the claim that people like BY, Marc (Rogue), Shooter and TallCoolOne get treated unfairly here. That in spite of their TOS violations and online behavior, they don't deserve the treatment they get here.

Then I show you example of just one insult by BY towards me and you give him a free pass from your self righteous crusade because I started it.

LOL...you know...you don't even have to answer. I think enough people here on VJ can read and draw their own conclusions about your selectiveness. You're a real pal, Charles. Thanks.

steven, you've demonstrated in this thread that you can't see the forest for the trees. you make a remark towards booyah that you know will draw a response, then claim innocence omg he's saying mean things to me? and then you get upset when it is pointed out to you? come on now!

[natty bumppo 297]

You know, Charles...I think RJ called you on this before. You chastised me for being unfair to people like BY and Marc, and right here in this thread, BY insulted me, yet silence from you. You'd be a lot more credible if you weren't selective about what you consider unfair treatment. It's too bad you don't see your double standard.

i refer you to post 3, where you started with the name slinging.

- wild tangent

- sparky

Oh, ok. So you're saying now that it is ok to insult BY or Marc or Shooter, as long as they start it? Thanks for clearing that up because for awhile I got the impression that you believed they should be treated fairly in spite of their online behavior. Brilliant.

Dude, you insulted the guy and now you're crying that he insulted you back?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Charles, be a man and answer for yourself. Come on now. Mawilson has no clue what this is all about. You made the claim that people like BY, Marc (Rogue), Shooter and TallCoolOne get treated unfairly here. That in spite of their TOS violations and online behavior, they don't deserve the treatment they get here.

Then I show you example of just one insult by BY towards me and you give him a free pass from your self righteous crusade because I started it.

LOL...you know...you don't even have to answer. I think enough people here on VJ can read and draw their own conclusions about your selectiveness. You're a real pal, Charles. Thanks.

steven, you've demonstrated in this thread that you can't see the forest for the trees. you make a remark towards booyah that you know will draw a response, then claim innocence omg he's saying mean things to me? and then you get upset when it is pointed out to you? come on now!

even the twins are learning we don't condone this type of behavior ...

[Pooky 3,849]

Interesting link that, I think the only way to fix the current health system is to have a plan that is "non-profit" which runs alongside the current private system, take the power away from profit, business schemes and give it to the people of the USA.

There would still be a market for the private insurance companies, so I don't know why the Republicans are concerned about them.

The only way to make a fundamental change in the direction of healthcare in this country is to remove the profit motive altogether. Insurance companies take money out of the system, thus they are a negative factor in the financial equation. However, they are currently the only way to obtain healthcare coverage in this country. So, as a result, the system has a built-in financial drain that everyone paying into an insurance scheme contributes to.

To make a fundamental change, you have to remove the insurance company from the basic level of healthcare coverage and fund it directly. Then, and only then, you give people the option to purchase private health insurance on top of that standard level of healthcare.

And yes, limiting malpractice lawsuits, as in the UK, will also contribute, because, like it or not, healthcare professionals are wasting money on another level of healthcare insurance. This cost cycles back into the cost of care and so feeds down to those paying their health insurance. Reducing the costs of the healthcare professionals will reduce the cost of medical procedures. And reducing the number and level of malpractice claims will allow the system to retain a greater number of professionals, who, unlike baseball players, usually get only the one strike, no matter how serious their offence.

I agree that the insurance companies are a bunch of snakes. Recission is an underhand, dirty way of denying some honest people cover they have paid for, collateral damage in the insurance companies' pursuit of fraudulent claims. The insurance companies are there to make a profit. Until the profit motivation is removed from the equation, the practice will continue.